See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279749819

Supplemental Dampers in Base-Isolated Buildings to Mitigate Large Isolator

Displacement under Earthquake Excitations

Article  in  Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering · June 2015
DOI: 10.5459/bnzsee.48.2.100-117

CITATIONS READS

30 1,649

4 authors:

Daniel Habtamu Zelleke Said Elias

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Elsevier B.V.
10 PUBLICATIONS   68 CITATIONS    92 PUBLICATIONS   1,574 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vasant Matsagar A.K. Jain

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
266 PUBLICATIONS   4,041 CITATIONS    88 PUBLICATIONS   1,249 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GIS & RS View project

Blast response and mitigation in curved structures for underground applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Said Elias on 18 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. XX, No. Y, Month 2015

SUPPLEMENTAL DAMPERS IN BASE-ISOLATED

BUILDINGS TO MITIGATE LARGE ISOLATOR
DISPLACEMENT UNDER EARTHQUAKE EXCITATIONS

Daniel H. Zelleke1*, Said Elias2, Vasant A. Matsagar3 and Arvind

K. Jain4
(Submitted September 2014; Reviewed October 2014; Accepted November 2014)

ABSTRACT
The effect of viscous, viscoelastic, and friction supplemental dampers on the seismic response of base-
isolated building supported by various isolation systems is investigated. Although base-isolated buildings
have an advantage in reducing damage to the superstructure, the displacement at the isolation level is large,
especially under near-fault ground motions. The influence of supplemental dampers in controlling the
isolator displacement and other responses of base-isolated building is investigated using a multi-storey
building frame. The coupled equations of motion are derived, solved and time history analysis is carried out
on a building modeled with fifteen combinations of five isolation systems and three passive dampers. The
seismic responses are compared with that of the fixed-base and base-isolated buildings. Based on the
results, it is concluded that supplemental dampers are beneficial to control the large deformation at the
isolator level. Parametric study is conducted and optimum ranges of damper parameters to achieve reduced
isolator displacement without adverse effect on the other responses are determined. Further, it is concluded
that the combination of the resilient-friction base isolator (R-FBI) and viscous damper is the most effective
in reducing the bearing displacement without significant increase in superstructure forces.
Keywords: base isolation; isolator displacement; earthquake; near-fault motion; supplemental damper.

INTRODUCTION displacement mandates providing larger moat widths and

Base isolation is an earthquake resistant design technique in
which the superstructure is isolated from ground movement to
reduce the transfer of seismic forces. The superstructure is
isolated from the foundation by isolation bearings having very
low lateral stiffness which shifts the fundamental time period
of the building to a higher value. This shift in the time period
results in fundamental frequency of the building much lower
than the predominant frequencies of the ground motion,
thereby significantly reducing the earthquake energy
transmitted to the building [1-2].
Base isolation protects both structural as well as non-structural
components from suffering damage due to earthquake and
helps structures to remain in service even after a large
earthquake event. This makes the technique preferred for
earthquake resistant design, especially for areas with large
seismic loading. Various isolation techniques were proposed
on which a number of analytical and experimental
investigations were conducted demonstrating the suitability of
the isolation techniques for earthquake resistant design of
structures [3-10]. Base isolation, currently, is one of the
popular earthquake resistant design techniques for important
structures like hospitals, schools, industrial structures, nuclear
power plants etc.
Different researchers [11-13] showed that the isolator
displacement in base-isolated buildings is very large under
near-fault ground motions due to the long pulse characteristics
of this type of earthquakes and the base-isolated buildings are
flexible due to incorporation of bearings with low horizontal
stiffness. The increased isolator displacement is a concern in
seismic isolation and needs to be addressed. Increased isolator
design of flexible services to the base-isolated building. Both
these requirements lead to increased costs, which can be
reduced by controlling the excessively large isolator
displacements. Jangid and Kelly [12] showed that the bearing
displacement under near-fault motion decreases with the
increase in the isolation damping. Optimum lead-rubber
bearings and friction pendulum systems under near-fault
ground motions were also determined by Jangid [14-15].
Various other techniques were suggested to lessen the
excessively large isolator displacement in base-isolated
structures by different researchers [16-19]. Chang et al. [20],
Kim et al. [21], Lu and Lin [22], Providakis [23], Lu et al.
[24], Oh et al. [25], and Qin et al. [26] also conducted
experimental and analytical studies and indicated that
supplemental damping can be effective in mitigating the
undesirable effects of near-fault ground excitations. Further
studies which detail the effectiveness and optimum parameters
of the supplemental dampers used in connection with
mitigation of large isolator displacement in base-isolated
buildings with various isolation systems under near-fault and
far-fault ground motions are beneficial. Therefore, it would be
useful to investigate the effects of applying supplemental
viscous, viscoelastic, and friction dampers in reducing the
isolator displacement in base-isolated buildings subjected to
near-fault and far-fault ground motions.
This paper investigates the influence and effectiveness of
using supplemental viscous, viscoelastic, and friction dampers
on the response of base-isolated buildings under near-fault and
far-fault ground motions. The main objectives of the study are:
(i) to study the effect of supplemental viscous, viscoelastic,
and friction dampers on the seismic response of base-isolated

1
Corresponding Author, Postgraduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engg., Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, New Delhi, danihabt@gmail.com.
2
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engg., Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, New Delhi, said.elias@civil.iitd.ac.in.
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engg., Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, New Delhi, matsagar@civil.iitd.ac.in.
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engg., Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, New Delhi, akjain@civil.iitd.ac.in.
2
buildings with various elastomeric and sliding isolation
systems, (ii) to conduct parametric study to obtain optimum
ranges of parameters for which each of the dampers are most
effective, and (iii) to compare the effectiveness of each of the
combinations of the isolation systems and supplemental
damping devices with respect to controlling the isolator
displacement without adversely affecting other responses of
the base-isolated building.
MODELING OF BASE-ISOLATED BUILDING WITH
DAMPER
The idealized mathematical models of the multi-storey
building considered for the present study are shown in Figure
1. Figures 1(a) and 1(b), respectively, show the models for
fixed-base and base-isolated buildings while Figure 1(c)
depicts the model for base-isolated building with supplemental
damper connected at the base mass level. Schematic
representations for five isolation systems, such as laminated
rubber bearing (LRB), lead-rubber bearing i.e. New Zealand
(N-Z) system, pure friction system (PF), friction pendulum
system (FPS), and resilient-friction base isolator (R-FBI), are
shown in Figures 2(a) to 2(e), respectively, while the force-
deformation relations for the three supplemental dampers used
in the present study, such as viscous damper (VD),
viscoelastic damper (VED), and friction damper (FD), are
shown in Figures 2(f) to 2(h), respectively. The schematic
representations of isolation systems give an idea about their
behavior and mathematical modeling, whereas, the force-
deformation relations for dampers give an idea about their
energy dissipating characteristics. The following assumptions
are made in modeling the building:
1. The building is modeled as a shear frame considering only
one lateral degree of freedom at each floor level.
2. The mass of the structure is lumped at each floor level and
the floors are considered to be infinitely stiff in their own
plane.
3. The columns providing the lateral stiffness are assumed to
be axially inextensible.
4. The effects of soil-structure interaction are neglected.
5. Only one horizontal component of the earthquake ground
motion is applied to the building at a time.
6. Taking into account the fact that base isolation reduces the
earthquake response of structures helping the elastic limit
not to be exceeded in the superstructure, the analysis is
carried out under the reasonable assumption that the
building frame remains within the elastic range under the
excitations from the ground motions.
A uniform damping ratio (ξs) of 0.02 is taken for the
superstructure. All floor masses are taken to be equal and the
floor stiffness are decided in such a way that a required
fundamental time period of the fixed-base building (T) is
obtained. For this study, all stories are considered to have the
same lateral stiffness, and base mass (mb) of the base-isolated
building model is taken to be equal to the floor masses.
Different combinations of the five isolators and three
supplemental dampers are investigated herein. The dampers
are connected at the isolation level with one end connected to
the base mass and the other to the ground. The fixed-base and
base-isolated building models are also studied for comparison
purpose.
Laminated Rubber Bearing (LRB)
Steel and rubber plates built in the alternate layers are the
basic components of laminated rubber bearings [2]. The
restoring force (Fb) developed in the laminated rubber bearing
is given by
Fb = c b x& b + k b x b (1)
where cb and kb are the damping coefficient and the stiffness
of the isolation system which are selected to provide specific
values of damping ratio (ξb) and isolation period (Tb),
respectively, using the following expressions
c b = 2ξ b mω b (2)
2
⎛ 2π ⎞
k b = m⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (3)
⎝ Tb ⎠
∑ j=1 m j
N
where m = mb + is the total mass of the base-
isolated building, mj is the mass of jth floor, and ω b = 2π / Tb
is the isolation frequency.
Lead-Rubber Bearing (New Zealand, N-Z System)
Lead-rubber bearings are similar to the LRB with additional
central lead-core provided as a means of additional energy
dissipation [2]. It also provides initial rigidity against wind
loads and minor earthquakes. The force-deformation behavior
of the lead-rubber bearing is non-linear hysteretic. The
restoring force (Fb) developed in the isolation system is given
by
Fb = cb x&b + αki xb + (1 − α ) Fy Z (4)
where Fy is the yield strength of the bearing, α is the ratio of
post-yield to pre-yield stiffness of the bearing, ki is the initial
stiffness of the bearing, and Z is a non-dimensional hysteretic
displacement component satisfying a non-linear differential
equation of first order expressed as
n −1 n
qZ& = Ax&b + β x&b Z Z − τx&b Z [27]. In this equation, q
is the yield displacement while β, τ, and A are dimensionless
parameters selected to be 0.5, 0.5, and 1, respectively. The
parameter n controls the smoothness of transition from elastic
to plastic range and is taken as 2.
The isolation period (Tb), damping ratio (ξb), and normalized
yield strength (Fo = Fy/W) are the parameters used to
characterize the lead-rubber bearing (where W = mg is the
total weight of the base-isolated building and g is the
acceleration due to gravity). The damping coefficient (cb) and
the isolation stiffness (kb) of the N-Z system are defined using
Equations 2 and 3, respectively.
Pure Friction System (PF)
In PF system, the horizontal friction force provides resistance
to lateral motion and dissipates energy. The PF system is
represented here using Coulomb’s friction with friction
coefficient (μ). The limiting friction force in the isolation
system is FL = μW. The isolation system will be in stick or slip
mode depending on the frictional force ( Fx = xb ki ) with
negligibly small yield displacement (q). The restoring force
(Fb) in the stick phase (i.e. Fx < FL) is given by
Fb = Fx . (5)
The frictional force increases up to a maximum value of FL at
which point the isolation system will be in slip mode. The
restoring force in the slip phase is given by
Fb = FL sgn (x&b ) .
(6)
 mN xN mN xN mN xN
kN kN kN

mN-1 xN-1 mN-1 xN-1 mN-1 xN-1

kN-1 kN-1 kN-1

m2 x2 m2 x2 m2 x2

k2 k2 k2

m1 x1 m1 x1 m1 x1
k1 k1 Damper k1

mb xb mb xb

Isolation system Isolation system

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1. Mathematical models of (a) fixed-base building, (b) base-isolated building, and (c) base-isolated building with
supplemental damper.

kb αki
xb xb
cb
cb

ẍg ẍg
(a) LRB (b) N-Z

kb kb

xb xb cb xb
μ
μ μ

ẍg ẍg ẍg

(c) PF (d) FPS (e) R-FBI

Force Force Force

Disp. Disp. Disp.

(f) VD (g) VED (h) FD

Figure 2. Schematic representations of isolation systems and force-deformation relations for dampers.
4
Friction Pendulum System (FPS)
The response of friction pendulum system (FPS) depends on
the friction coefficient and the geometry of the isolation
system [28]. The system becomes active only when the static
value of friction is exceeded by the earthquake force.
Restoring force is generated in the FPS due to the raising of
the structure caused by the concave geometry of the isolator.
The total lateral force developed is equal to the sum of
restoring and friction forces. The restoring force is given by
Fb = k b xb + Fx (7)
where kb is the bearing stiffness, and Fx = μW is the friction
force.
The isolation period (Tb) and friction coefficient (μ) are the
parameters used to characterize the FPS and the stiffness of
the isolation system (kb) is selected using Equation 3 so that
the required isolation period is obtained. The isolation
stiffness here refers the concavity of the FPS.
Resilient-Friction Base Isolator (R-FBI)
Sliding flat ring elements and central rubber core are
constituents of resilient-friction base isolator (R-FBI) and the
sliding rings are Teflon-coated to reduce friction while
flexible cover is used as protection against corrosion and dust
[29]. The restoring force in the R-FBI is given by
Fb = cb x&b + k b xb + Fx . (8)
Here, Fx = μW is the friction force. The isolation period (Tb),
friction coefficient (μ), and damping ratio (ξb) are the
parameters used to characterize the R-FBI. The damping
coefficient (cb) and the stiffness of the isolation system (kb) are
selected respectively using Equations 2 and 3 so that the
required damping ratio and isolation period are obtained.
Viscous Damper (VD)
Viscous dampers (VDs) are velocity dependent energy
dissipation devices and the damping force generated is directly
proportional to the relative velocity between the two ends of
the damper. A damping exponent of 1 is used to model the
viscous damper in this study and the damping force (Fd)
generated in the damper is expressed as
Fd = cd x&b (9)
where x&b is the relative velocity between the two ends of the
damper, i.e. the relative velocity between the base mass and
the ground for this study, and cd is the damping coefficient of
the viscous damper. The external damping ratio (ξd) added to
the system due to the supplemental viscous damper is defined
as
cd
ξd = . (10)
2mωb
Viscoelastic Damper (VED)
In viscoelastic dampers (VEDs), energy is dissipated through
shear deformation of viscoelastic layer. These dampers are
velocity dependent and can be modeled using a spring-dashpot
element acting in parallel. The force generated in the VEDs is
a combination of damping force and elastic force. The
damping force is directly proportional to the relative velocity
between the two ends of the damper while the elastic force is
proportional to the relative displacement. The force generated
in the viscoelastic damper (Fd) is expressed as
Fd = kd xb + cd x& b (11)
where kd is the stiffness of the viscoelastic damper. The
external damping ratio (ξd) added to the system due to the
supplemental viscoelastic damper can be expressed using
Equation 10 while the relative external damper stiffness (k′),
expressed in terms of the isolation effective stiffness, is
defined as
kd
k' = . (12)
ωb2 m
Friction Damper (FD)
The force generated in a friction damper (FD) arises from
friction. The friction force in the damper has typical Coulomb
friction characteristics. The displacement in the damper will
occur only if the force induced in the damper reaches the
limiting friction force (FL). The FD is represented here using
the normalized limiting friction force (μd = FL/W) and the
force generated in the damper (Fd) is expressed as
Fd = μdW sgn (x&b ) . (13)
GOVERNING EQUATIONS OF MOTION
The governing equations of motion are derived by taking
equilibrium of forces at each degree of freedom during seismic
excitation. The equations of motion for the base-isolated
building with supplemental damper expressed in the matrix
form, which is of order of the number of degrees of freedom in
the building (N+1), are given as
⎡ m r T M ⎤ ⎧&x&b ⎫ ⎡c 0 ⎤ ⎧ x&b ⎫ ⎡k 0 ⎤ ⎧ xb ⎫ ⎡ m r T M ⎤ ⎧1⎫ (14)
⎢ ⎥ ⎨ && ⎬ + ⎢ ⎥ ⎨ X& ⎬ + ⎢0 K ⎥ ⎨ X ⎬ = − ⎢ ⎥ ⎨ ⎬&x&g
⎣⎢ Mr M X
⎥⎦ ⎩ ⎭ ⎣ 0 C ⎦⎩ ⎭ ⎣ ⎦⎩ ⎭ ⎣⎢ Mr M ⎥⎦ ⎩0⎭
where M = diag[m1, m2 ,..., mN ] , C , and K are the mass,
damping, and stiffness matrices of the superstructure which
are of order ( N × N ) , respectively; c and k are respectively
the damping coefficient and stiffness at the isolation level
obtained by combining the contributions of the isolator and
attached damper; xb , x&b , and &x&b are the displacement,
velocity, and acceleration of the base mass relative to the
ground, respectively; X = {x1 , x2 ,..., x N } , X& , and X
T && are
the vectors of floor displacements, velocities, and
accelerations, respectively, relative to the base mass; r = {1} is
vector of influence coefficients; and &x&g is the earthquake
ground acceleration.
Due to the non-linear force-deformation behavior of the
isolator and the difference between the damping of the
isolation system, the superstructure, and the supplemental
damper, the equations of motion cannot be solved using the
classical modal superposition technique. Therefore, the
equations of motion are numerically solved using the
Newmark’s method of step-by-step integration using a small
time interval (∆t) with linear variation of acceleration.
NUMERICAL STUDY
The effect of viscous, viscoelastic, and friction supplemental
dampers on the response of base-isolated building is studied
here. Multi-storey shear model of a building is used in the
investigation and the supplemental damper is connected at the
isolation level with one end attached to the ground and the
other to the base mass.
The seismic response of five-storey building models are
investigated under real earthquake ground motion records.
Three near-fault (NF) and three far-fault (FF) ground motions
with varying Richter scale magnitudes are used for the study.
The peak ground accelerations (PGAs) and other relevant
details of the selected ground motion data are shown in Table
1.
Base Isolation Systems
Laminated rubber bearing is modeled using isolation period
(Tb) and damping ratio (ξb) while N-Z system is modeled
using isolation period (Tb), damping ratio (ξb), normalized
yield strength (Fo), and isolator yield displacement (q).
Friction coefficient (μ) is used to characterize the PF system
and FPS; with FPS having stiffness (kb) in addition to the
friction coefficient. The R-FBI system is modeled using
similar parameters as that for the FPS with additional damping
parameter (ξb) incorporated.
Throughout this study, a five-storey building with
fundamental fixed-base time period (T) of 0.5 sec is
investigated. The five isolation systems are modeled with
specific parameters and paired with the three types of dampers
and the response are compared. In this study, ξb values of 0.1,
0.15, 0.2, and 0.25; Tb values of 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.25, 2.5, 2.75,
and 3 sec; Fo and µ values of 0.05, 0.075, 0.1, 0.125, and 0.15;
and q of 2.5 cm are used to model the five isolation systems
accordingly.
Effect of Viscous Damper
Viscous damper is velocity dependent damping device and the
parameter used in modeling includes the damping coefficient
(cd) which is obtained using Equation 10 in terms of the
external damping ratio (ξd) added to the system. For this study,
ξd values of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, and 40%
are considered.
The time histories of top floor acceleration, isolator
displacement, and storey shear for the five-storied base-
isolated building with the R-FBI and viscous damper under the
1989 Loma Prieta, the 1994 Northridge, and the 1995 Kobe
ground motions are plotted in Figure 3.
The influence of the external damping (ξd) added to the system
on the responses of the base-isolated building is investigated
and the trend is obtained for each isolation system. Figure 4
shows the trend of the influence of ξd on the response of a
building isolated by the R-FBI under near-fault ground
motions. To derive a generalized trend, the average of the
patterns for all isolation systems is obtained and plotted
together in Figures 5 and 6 for near-fault and far-fault ground
motions, respectively. These plots show that the increase in
the damping ratio of the damper (ξd) causes the isolator
displacement to reduce and the top floor acceleration to
increase marginally. As ξd increases, the normalized first
storey shear decreases initially and then show increment after
certain damping is reached. It is observed that minimum
storey shear values are achieved for certain range of the
damping ratio of the damper (ξd).
Effect of Viscoelastic Damper
The force-displacement model of viscoelastic damper is
represented with combined effect of the damper elastic force
and the damping force. The elastic force is represented with
the damper stiffness (kd) which can be obtained from the
relative external damper stiffness (k′) while damping
coefficient of damper (cd) is used to obtain the damping force.
Here, cd is expressed in terms of the external damping (ξd)
added to the system due to the supplemental viscoelastic
device. Relative external damper stiffness values of 0.05, 0.15,
0.3, 0.5, 0.75, 1.1, 1.5, and 2 are used while the damping
coefficient values considered here are same as that of the
viscous dampers.
Figure 3 also shows the time histories of top floor
acceleration, isolator displacement, and storey shear for the
five-storied base-isolated building modeled using the R-FBI
with viscoelastic damper under the 1989 Loma Prieta, the
1994 Northridge, and the 1995 Kobe ground motions.
The influence of the external damping (ξd) and the relative
damper stiffness (k′) added to the system on the response of
the base-isolated building are investigated and the trends can
be observed from Figures 5 and 6. The general trend shows
that the increase in the damping ratio of the damper (ξd) causes
the isolator displacement to reduce while the top floor
acceleration and normalized first storey shear increase
marginally.
The increase in the k′ reduces the isolator displacement while
the top floor acceleration and first storey shear generally
increase initially however then start to reduce after a certain
value of the k′.
Effect of Friction Damper
Friction dampers are displacement dependent devices and are
modeled in this study by specifying the limiting friction force
(FL). The normalized limiting friction force (μd = FL/W),
which is the ratio of the limiting friction force to the total
weight of the base-isolated building, is used to define the
friction damper. Values of μd used are 0.015, 0.03, 0.05, 0.07,
0.09, 0.11, 0.13, 0.15, 0.17, 0.19, 0.21, 0.23, and 0.25.
The time histories of the response for the five-storied base-
isolated building with the R-FBI and the three types of
dampers considered here under the three near-fault ground
motions are shown in Figure 3.

Table 1. List of near-fault and far-fault earthquake ground motions used in the study.
No. Earthquake Name Year Station Name Magnitude PGA (g) NF/FF
Los Gatos
1 Loma Prieta, USA 1989 6.93 0.97 NF
Presentation Center (LGPC)
2 Northridge, USA 1994 Sylmar - Hospital 6.69 0.84 NF
Kobe Japan Meteorological
3 Kobe, Japan 1995 6.90 0.83 NF
Agency (KJMA)
4 Imperial Valley, USA 1940 El Centro Array #9-117 7.0 0.27 FF
5 Tabas, Iran 1978 Ferdows 7.4 0.26 FF
6 Northridge, USA 1994 Century City CC North 6.7 0.11 FF
 6
Loma Prieta, 1989 Northridge, 1994 Kobe, 1995
3 Base-isolated Fixed-base 3
Base-isolated + VD 3
Top floor acceleration (g)

2 Base-isolated + VED 2
Base-isolated + FD 2
1 1 1

0 0 0

-1 Peak responses -1 Peak responses -1 Peak responses

0.617 0.625 0.687 0.843 0.494 0.586 0.541 0.953 -2 0.646 0.664 0.639 0.964
-2 0.75 -2 0.75 0.75
-3
0.00 0.00 0.00
-3 -3
-0.75 8 9 10 11 12 30 -0.75 5 6 7 8 9 -0.75 8 9 10 11
40 20
Isolator displacement (cm)

21.57
18.88
12.19
20 15 10

0 0 0
R-FBI: Τ = 0.5 sec, Tb = 2.5 sec,
ξb = 0.15, μ = 0.075
-20 23.79 -15 -10 11.21
30.70 VD: ξd = 20%
34.06 VED: ξd = 20%, k' = 0.75 13.31
25.71 13.99
-40 42.66 -20
-30 31.64 FD: μd = 0.07
2 2
2
Normalized first storey shear

1 1
1

0 0 0
Peak responses Peak responses Peak responses
0.333 0.307 0.328 0.334 0.353 0.285 0.288 0.273 -1 0.247 0.234 0.247 0.280
-1 0.3 -1 0.3 0.3

0.0 0.0 0.0

-2
-0.3 8 9 10 11 12 -0.3 5 6 7 8 9 -0.3 8 9 10 11
-2 -2
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 3. Time histories of isolator displacement, top floor acceleration, and normalized first storey shear of five-storey building isolated by R-FBI under near-fault ground motions.
 Base-isolated + VD Base-isolated + VED Base-isolated + VED Base-isolated + FD
50
Loma Prieta, 1989 Relative stiffness of damper (k') = 0.75 Damping ratio of damper (ξd) = 20 %
Isolator displacement (cm)

Northridge, 1994
40 Kobe, 1995
Average
30

20

10

1.5
R-FBI
Top floor acceleration (g)

T = 0.5 sec,
Tb = 2.5 sec,
1
ξb = 15 %,
μ = 0.075

0.5

0.5
Normalized first storey shear

0.4

0.3

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 10 15 20 25 30 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Damping ratio of damper: ξd (%) Damping ratio of damper: ξd (%) Relative damper stiffness: k' Normalized limiting friction force: μd

Figure 4. Effect of damper parameters on the responses of five-storey building isolated by R-FBI under near-fault ground motions (T = 0.5 sec, Tb = 2.5 sec, µ = 0.075, ξb = 15%).

7
 8
Base-isolated + VD Base-isolated + VED Base-isolated + VED Base-isolated + FD
50
LRB Relative stiffness of damper (k') = 0.75 Damping ratio of damper (ξd) = 20 %
Isolator displacement (cm)

N-Z
40 PF
FPS
R-FBI
30
Average

20

10

1.5
LRB / N-Z / PF / FPS / R−FBI
Top floor acceleration (g)

T = 0.5 sec, Tb = 2.5 sec, ξb = 0.15,

1 Fo = μ = 0.075

0.5
Normalized first storey shear

0.4

0.3

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 10 15 20 25 30 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Damping ratio of damper: ξd (%) Damping ratio of damper: ξd (%) Relative damper stiffness: k' Normalized limiting friction force: μd

Figure 5. Effect of damper parameters on the responses of five-storey base-isolated building isolated by all five base isolation systems under near-fault ground motions (T = 0.5 sec, Tb = 2.5 sec).
 Base-isolated + VD Base-isolated + VED Base-isolated + VED Base-isolated + FD
10
LRB Relative stiffness of damper (k') = 0.75 Damping ratio of damper (ξd) = 20 %
Isolator displacement (cm)

N-Z
8
PF
FPS
6 R-FBI
Average
4

LRB / N-Z / PF / FPS / R−FBI

Top floor acceleration (g)

1
T = 0.5 sec, Tb = 2.5 sec, ξb = 0.15,
Fo = μ = 0.075

0.1

0.3
Normalized first storey shear

0.2

0.1

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 10 15 20 25 30 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Damping ratio of damper: ξd (%) Damping ratio of damper: ξd (%) Relative damper stiffness: k' Normalized limiting friction force: μd

Figure 6. Effect of damper parameters on the responses of five-storey base-isolated building isolated by all the five isolation systems under far-fault ground motions (T = 0.5 sec, Tb = 2.5 sec).

9
10
The influence of the limiting friction force (μd) on the
responses of the base-isolated building is investigated and the
trend is plotted in Figures 5 and 6. These plots show that the
increase in the limiting friction force (μd) causes the isolator
displacement to reduce significantly for certain values of μd
and the rate of reduction of the isolator displacement reduces
afterwards for all isolators except for the PF system. For the
PF system, the isolator displacement reduces initially and then
starts to increase after some value of μd is reached because of
the introduction of the large slip load to the system. The top
floor acceleration and normalized first storey shear keep
increasing for an increase in μd; however, the rate of increment
is smaller initially and becomes larger for higher values of the
μd. The increase in the top floor acceleration and the first
storey shear is mainly caused due to the large initial stiffness
of the FD which also increases the acceleration associated
with higher frequencies.
The peak responses of a base-isolated building with the VD,
VED, and FD of selected parameters are shown in Table 2. It
is seen that the isolator displacement is significantly reduced
when VD, VED, and FD are used.
Study of Responses for Various Dampers and Isolation
Systems
Figure 7 shows the force-deformation behavior of the R-FBI
and dampers for the base-isolated building as well as base-
isolated buildings with the supplemental dampers under the
three near-fault ground motions. Comparison of the plots of
each model with supplemental damper to that without the
damper clearly shows that the use of all the three supplemental
dampers is helpful in reducing the isolator displacement. The
force-deformation relations also indicate the relative
effectiveness of the viscous, viscoelastic, and friction dampers
showing that the friction damper and viscous damper are more
effective in reducing deformation at the isolator level.
Figure 8 shows, in addition to the effectiveness of the dampers
in reducing the bearing displacement, the distribution of the
peak floor displacement, peak floor acceleration, and peak
storey shear over the total height of the building. The plots of
floor accelerations and the normalized storey shear show that
these responses are not undesirably affected, due to the use of
the supplemental dampers, throughout the height of the
building. The application of the friction damper caused the
largest increment in the acceleration response; however, the
response remained well below the case of the fixed-base
building. The plots of the floor displacements also show
decrease in the peak lateral displacement of the building at all
floor levels due to the application of the supplemental
dampers. This indicates that the supplemental dampers can
also be helpful in minimizing the risk of pounding in base-
isolated buildings. Such use of dampers for minimizing the
risk of pounding at superstructure level connecting adjacent
buildings in case of the base-isolated building was established
earlier [30].
In Figure 9, the comparison of the FFT amplitude spectra of
top floor acceleration for the base-isolated building and base-
isolated building with each damper type is shown. The FFT
spectra of top floor acceleration obtained for the base-isolated
building with the VD and VED are relatively not significantly
different from that of the base-isolated building without
supplemental damper. However, the Fourier spectra for the
base-isolated building fitted with the FD is significantly
different and indicates that there is high contribution in the
superstructure acceleration from high frequencies. This is
caused due to the high initial stiffness of the friction damper
introduced to the system, which is suddenly changed to low
stiffness, inducing sudden change of phase from stick to slip
and vice-versa. The large acceleration in the superstructure
associated with high frequencies is undesirable for sensitive
equipment and secondary structures in the building. This is
because of the occurrence of resonant effect in the sensitive
equipment and secondary structures in the building which
usually vibrate in the same frequency range. Hence,
performance of the FD is inferior as compared to the VD and
VED from this viewpoint.
The time histories of input and dissipated energies per unit
mass (E) of the base-isolated building with and without
supplemental damper are shown in Figure 10. The energy
plots show that the supplemental dampers dissipate significant
amount of the earthquake energy. A comparison between the
three types of dampers also shows that the FD dissipates the
highest amount of energy followed by the viscous damper.
The plots also show that the energy dissipated by the base-
isolator is lower when a damper is used which dissipates
higher amount of energy.
Based on the peak responses of the base-isolated building
presented in Table 2, the percentage reductions of the
responses under the three near-fault ground motion considered
are determined and shown in Table 3.
The plots of the peak isolator displacement, top floor
acceleration, and normalized first-storey shear, shown in
Figure 11, indicate the effectiveness of each of the
combinations of isolation system and damper explored in
reducing the isolator displacement without adversely affecting
the top floor acceleration and the storey shear. It is observed
that installing the FD results in the largest reduction in isolator
displacement for all isolation systems except when the PF
isolation system is used. However, both the top floor
acceleration and normalized storey shear are found to be high
when the FD is used. Although the top floor accelerations
obtained for base-isolated building models with the VED are
low, the isolator displacement obtained is large as compared to
that of the VD and FD. The storey shear is also higher relative
to the case of base-isolated buildings with the VD. The
isolator displacement obtained when viscous dampers are used
is marginally higher in comparison with the case where FDs
are used. However, the VD has advantages over the FD in
giving lower floor acceleration and storey shear. From the five
isolation systems considered, the R-FBI results in the lowest
isolator displacement followed by the N-Z system with all
three damper types. The LRB is observed to exhibit the largest
isolator displacement while the PF system and FPS result in
moderate isolator displacement. The PF system and FD are
also apparently resulting in large residual isolator
displacements due to absence of restoring force, which hence
is undesirable combination. Thus, the combination of the R-
FBI and VD is recommended for achieving maximum isolator
displacement reduction.
Figure 12 shows the effect of isolation period (Tb) on the
percentage reduction in the responses of five-storey base-
isolated building with supplemental dampers. It is observed
that Tb does not have significant effect on the percentage
reduction in the isolator displacement of base-isolated building
with the VD. However, the increase in Tb causes lesser and
higher percentage reduction of isolator displacement for base-
isolated building with the VED and FD, respectively.
Although base-isolated building with the FD having large Tb
benefits from higher percentage reduction in isolator
displacement, top floor acceleration, and storey shear show
larger increase. The percentage reduction in top floor
acceleration of base-isolated building with the VD and VED
does not vary significantly with the Tb while increase in the Tb
causes lesser control of the first storey shear.
 Loma Prieta, 1989 Northridge, 1994 Kobe, 1995
0.4 Base-isolated 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

F/W

0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2 R-FBI: T = 0.5 sec, -0.2

T b = 2.5 sec, ξb = 0.15,
-0.4 -0.4 μ = 0.075 -0.4

0.4 Base-isolated + VD 0.4 0.4

ξd = 20%
0.2 0.2 0.2
F/W

0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

0.4 Base-isolated + VED 0.4 0.4

ξd = 20%, k' = 0.75
0.2 0.2 0.2
F/W

0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

0.4 Base-isolated + FD 0.4 0.4

μd = 0.07
0.2 0.2 0.2
F/W

0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

Force in isolator
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4 Force in isolator + damper
-40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40 -20 -10 0 10 20
Isolator displacement (cm) Isolator displacement (cm) Isolator displacement (cm)

Figure 7. Comparison of force-deformation behavior of isolator for five-storey building isolated by R-FBI with and without supplemental dampers under near-fault ground motions.

11
12

Fifth

Fourth

Third
Floor Level

Second

First
Fixed-base
Base-isolated
Base Base-isolated + VD
Base-isolated + VED
Base-isolated + FD Loma Prieta, 1989
Ground

Fifth

Fourth

Third
Floor Level

Second

First

R-FBI
Base
Τ = 0.5 sec, Tb = 2.5 sec,
ξb = 0.15, μ = 0.075 Northridge, 1994
Ground

Fifth

Fourth

Third
Floor Level

Second

First

VD: ξd = 20%
Base VED: ξd = 20%, k' = 0.75
FD: μd = 0.07
Kobe, 1995
Ground
0 1 2 3 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Peak floor acceleration (g) Peak floor displacement (cm) Peak normalized storey shear

Figure 8. Distribution of peak floor acceleration, peak floor displacement, and peak normalized storey shear over the height
of five-storey base-isolated building under near-fault ground motions.
 13

Table 2. Peak responses of five-storey base-isolated building with and without supplemental damper under near-fault ground
motions (T = 0.5 sec, Tb = 2.5 sec).
Base-isolated building with
Response under near-fault ground motions Base-isolated VD VED FD Fixed-base
(ξd = 20%) (ξd = 20%, k' = 0.75) (μd = 0.07)
Loma Isolator displacement (cm) 64.558 44.902 50.457 43.990 -
Prieta, Top floor acceleration (g) 0.476 0.421 0.466 0.650 2.875
1989 Normalized first storey shear 0.376 0.322 0.376 0.335 1.675

LRB Isolator displacement (cm) 49.227 32.972 38.633 32.981 -

Northridge,
ξb = 0.15 Top floor acceleration (g) 0.396 0.368 0.404 0.463 3.098
1994
Tb = 2.5 sec Normalized first storey shear 0.284 0.259 0.301 0.266 1.652
Isolator displacement (cm) 28.378 18.975 21.518 14.921 -
Kobe,
Top floor acceleration (g) 0.231 0.315 0.314 0.621 3.606
1995
Normalized first storey shear 0.168 0.158 0.186 0.203 2.066

Loma Isolator displacement (cm) 48.231 35.776 39.049 30.667 -

Prieta, Top floor acceleration (g) 0.438 0.421 0.461 0.776 2.875
1989 Normalized first storey shear 0.324 0.305 0.336 0.298 1.675
N-Z
ξb = 0.15, Isolator displacement (cm) 37.986 25.421 30.334 23.703 -
Northridge,
Fo = 0.075, Top floor acceleration (g) 0.395 0.456 0.459 0.525 3.098
1994
q = 2.5 cm, Normalized first storey shear 0.268 0.276 0.308 0.271 1.652
Tb = 2.5 sec
Isolator displacement (cm) 21.128 14.169 16.878 13.257 -
Kobe,
Top floor acceleration (g) 0.348 0.456 0.382 0.723 3.606
1995
Normalized first storey shear 0.199 0.224 0.206 0.228 2.066

Loma Isolator displacement (cm) 65.724 32.059 39.066 32.410 -

Prieta, Top floor acceleration (g) 0.675 0.591 0.617 0.829 2.875
1989 Normalized first storey shear 0.155 0.170 0.179 0.237 1.675
Isolator displacement (cm) 42.459 29.864 33.987 26.191 -
PF Northridge,
Top floor acceleration (g) 0.637 0.926 0.873 1.001 3.098
µ = 0.075 1994
Normalized first storey shear 0.160 0.239 0.198 0.307 1.652
Isolator displacement (cm) 17.814 16.450 17.188 22.683 -
Kobe,
Top floor acceleration (g) 0.676 0.730 0.658 1.048 3.606
1995
Normalized first storey shear 0.142 0.183 0.175 0.252 2.066

Loma Isolator displacement (cm) 57.127 39.016 44.121 32.877 -

Prieta, Top floor acceleration (g) 0.705 0.631 0.638 0.900 2.875
1989 Normalized first storey shear 0.414 0.315 0.399 0.343 1.675

FPS Isolator displacement (cm) 45.650 28.314 34.924 24.930 -

Northridge,
µ = 0.075, Top floor acceleration (g) 0.591 0.508 0.507 0.860 3.098
1994
Tb = 2.5 sec Normalized first storey shear 0.324 0.260 0.327 0.320 1.652
Isolator displacement (cm) 21.434 12.583 15.075 14.221 -
Kobe,
Top floor acceleration (g) 0.712 0.619 0.599 0.950 3.606
1995
Normalized first storey shear 0.212 0.212 0.230 0.285 2.066

Loma Isolator displacement (cm) 42.662 30.705 34.064 23.790 -

Prieta, Top floor acceleration (g) 0.617 0.625 0.687 0.843 2.875
1989 Normalized first storey shear 0.333 0.307 0.328 0.334 1.675
R-FBI Isolator displacement (cm) 31.644 21.569 25.706 18.884 -
µ = 0.075, Northridge,
Top floor acceleration (g) 0.505 0.586 0.541 0.953 3.098
ξb = 0.15, 1994
Tb = 2.5 sec Normalized first storey shear 0.257 0.285 0.288 0.273 1.652
Isolator displacement (cm) 13.989 11.206 13.310 12.189 -
Kobe,
Top floor acceleration (g) 0.627 0.664 0.639 0.964 3.606
1995
Normalized first storey shear 0.201 0.234 0.247 0.280 2.066
14

0.7 0.15
Loma Prieta, 1989 LRB Base-isolated
0.6 Northridge, 1994 Τ = 0.5 sec, Base-isolated + VD
0.12 Tb = 2.5 sec,
Fourier amplitude (g)

Kobe, 1995 Base-isolated + VED

0.5
ξb = 0.15 Base-isolated + FD
0.09
0.4

0.3 0.06

0.2
0.03
0.1
Fixed-base Loma Prieta, 1989
0.0 0.00
0.08 0.05
R-FBI N-Z VD: ξd = 20%
Τ = 0.5 sec, Τ = 0.5 sec, VED: ξd = 20%, k' = 0.75
Tb = 2.5 sec, 0.04 Tb = 2.5 sec,
Fourier amplitude (g)

0.06 FD: μd = 0.07

ξb = 0.15, ξb = 0.15, Fo = 0.075
0.03
μ = 0.075
0.04
0.02

0.02
0.01
Northridge, 1994 Kobe, 1995
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 9. FFT spectra of top floor acceleration for five-storey base-isolated building with and without supplemental
dampers under near-fault ground motions.

Loma Prieta, 1989 Northridge, 1994 Kobe, 1995

Base-isolated 3
E (m 2/sec 2)

3 R-FBI 2
2
2 T = 0.5 sec,
Tb = 2.5 sec,
1 Input energy
1 μ = 0.075, 1
Energy dissipated by damper
ξb = 0.15 Energy dissipated by isolator
0 0 0
Base-isolated + VD
3
E (m 2/sec 2)

3 ξ = 20 % 2
d
2
2
1
1 1

0 0 0
Base-isolated + VED
3
E (m 2/sec 2)

3 2
ξd = 20 %,
2
2 k' = 0.75
1
1 1

0 0 0
Base-isolated + FD
3
E (m 2/sec 2)

3 2
μd = 0.07
2
2
1
1 1

0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)
Figure 10. Time histories of input and dissipated energies per unit mass for base-isolated building with and without
supplemental dampers.
 15

Table 3. Average percentage reductions in responses of five-storey base-isolated building due to application of supplemental
viscous, viscoelastic, and friction dampers under near-fault ground motions (T = 0.5 sec).
Base-isolated building with
Response reduction under near-fault ground motions VD VED FD
(ξd = 20%) (ξd = 20%, k' = 0.75) (μd = 0.07)
Isolator displacement (%) 33.590 23.710 34.616
Tb = 2 sec Top floor acceleration (%) 7.402 2.924 -23.282
Normalized first storey shear (%) 17.236 4.216 11.592
Isolator displacement (%) 32.201 22.512 37.428
LRB
Tb = 2.5 sec Top floor acceleration (%) -5.882 -11.935 -74.076
ξb = 0.15
Normalized first storey shear (%) 9.692 -5.486 -1.114
Isolator displacement (%) 29.381 16.239 37.202
Tb = 3 sec Top floor acceleration (%) -13.034 -8.928 -127.793
Normalized first storey shear (%) 1.461 -8.460 -14.636
Isolator displacement (%) 31.978 23.915 32.808
Tb = 2 sec Top floor acceleration (%) -5.745 -3.994 -40.524
Normalized first storey shear (%) 4.144 -2.883 5.519
N-Z Isolator displacement (%) 30.613 19.766 37.089
ξb = 0.15,
Tb = 2.5 sec Top floor acceleration (%) -14.266 -10.474 -72.544
Fo = 0.075,
q = 2.5 cm Normalized first storey shear (%) -3.192 -7.361 -2.413
Isolator displacement (%) 27.894 15.521 38.139
Tb = 3 sec Top floor acceleration (%) -13.824 -9.693 -85.736
Normalized first storey shear (%) -11.217 -12.383 -14.166
Isolator displacement (%) 32.794 24.136 20.556
Tb = 2 sec Top floor acceleration (%) -14.983 -0.678 -45.078
Normalized first storey shear (%) -36.673 -30.803 -74.207
Isolator displacement (%) 29.515 21.343 20.556
PF
Tb = 2.5 sec Top floor acceleration (%) -13.668 -8.610 -45.078
µ = 0.075
Normalized first storey shear (%) -29.426 -20.844 -74.207
Isolator displacement (%) 27.268 19.564 20.556
Tb = 3 sec Top floor acceleration (%) -12.424 -1.628 -45.078
Normalized first storey shear (%) -25.779 -12.012 -74.207
Isolator displacement (%) 35.883 25.413 34.199
Tb = 2 sec Top floor acceleration (%) 16.287 5.819 -18.678
Normalized first storey shear (%) 16.934 2.325 6.708
Isolator displacement (%) 36.991 25.310 40.497
FPS
Tb = 2.5 sec Top floor acceleration (%) 12.573 13.190 -35.562
µ = 0.075
Normalized first storey shear (%) 14.444 -1.950 -5.356
Isolator displacement (%) 29.322 13.939 33.578
Tb = 3 sec Top floor acceleration (%) -14.373 -1.547 -56.506
Normalized first storey shear (%) 7.215 -10.914 -17.498
Isolator displacement (%) 26.898 15.782 31.705
Tb = 2 sec Top floor acceleration (%) -11.873 -7.875 -58.987
Normalized first storey shear (%) 2.331 -6.766 -1.997

R-FBI Isolator displacement (%) 26.587 14.589 32.475

µ = 0.075, Tb = 2.5 sec Top floor acceleration (%) -7.741 -6.785 -59.744
ξb = 0.15 Normalized first storey shear (%) -6.411 -11.024 -15.224
Isolator displacement (%) 22.790 14.014 28.348
Tb = 3 sec Top floor acceleration (%) 2.424 3.988 -50.617
Normalized first storey shear (%) -8.248 -13.561 -24.513
16
50 Tb = 3 sec LRB / N-Z / PF / FPS / R−FBI
Tb = 2 sec Base-isolated + VD Tb = 2.5 sec
T = 0.5 sec, Fo = μ = 0.075, ξb = 0.15
Isolator disp. (cm)
Base-isolated + VED
40
Base-isolated + FD
30

20

10

0
1.0
Top floor acc. (g)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
Normalized 1 st storey shear

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
LRB N-Z PF FPS R-FBI LRB N-Z PF FPS R-FBI LRB N-Z PF FPS R-FBI
Isolation system Isolation system Isolation system

Figure 11. Comparison of the isolator displacement, top floor acceleration, and normalized first storey shear achieved for the
combinations of isolators and dampers under near-fault ground motions.

50
VD: ξd = 20 % VED: ξd = 20 %, k' = 0.75 FD: μd = 0.07
Isolator displacement

40

30

20 LRB
N-Z
PF
10 LRB / N-Z / PF / FPS / R−FBI
Percentage response reduction in

FPS
T = 0.5 sec, ξb = 0.15, Fo = μ = 0.075
R-FBI
0
50
Top floor acceleration

-50

-100

-150

25
First storey shear

-25

-50

-75
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Tb (sec) Tb (sec) Tb (sec)

Figure 12. Effect of isolation period on the percentage reduction in responses of five-storey base-isolated building with
supplemental dampers under near-fault ground motions.

Responses under Near-Fault and Far-Fault Ground
Motions
Comparison of the responses of the base-isolated building
with supplemental dampers under near-fault and far-fault
ground motions show that near-fault ground motions result in
larger response irrespective of providing the isolation and
damping system. The trends in Figures 5 and 6 also indicate
that base-isolated buildings subjected to the near-fault
excitations benefit substantially from the supplemental
damping devices provided.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the effect of viscous, viscoelastic, and friction
supplemental dampers on the seismic response of base-
isolated buildings with various isolation systems is
investigated. The influence of installing the supplemental
dampers on isolator displacement, floor acceleration, and
storey shear of base-isolated building is investigated.
Parametric study is conducted to arrive at range of parameters
for optimum responses and the effectiveness of each of the
dampers in reducing the isolator displacement without
affecting other responses to undesirable extent is quantified.
Finally, the contributions of all the isolator and damper
combinations in controlling the seismic response of the base-
isolated building are compared and the combination resulting
with the highest isolator displacement control is indicated. The
following conclusions are drawn based on the results obtained
from the study.
1. Application of supplemental viscous, viscoelastic, and
friction dampers in the base-isolated buildings generally
decreases the isolator displacement.
2. Viscous dampers are most effective in mitigating large
isolator displacement without adversely affecting other
responses of the base-isolated building when damping
ratio of damper (ξd) is between 10% and 25%.
3. Damping ratio (ξd) values of 15% to 25% and relative
damper stiffness (k') values of 0.5 to 1.5 may be selected
as optimum range of parameters where viscoelastic
dampers are most effective in controlling isolator
displacement without adverse effect on the other seismic
responses.
4. Friction dampers are most effective in mitigating large
isolator displacement without adversely affecting other
responses of the base-isolated building for normalized
limiting friction forces (μd) between 0.05 and 0.1.
5. Friction damper is found to result in lower isolator
displacement as compared to the cases when viscous and
viscoelastic dampers are used. However, the use of
friction dampers also causes increase in top floor
acceleration and storey shear.
6. The use of friction supplemental dampers in base-isolated
building transfers more earthquake acceleration associated
with high frequencies to the superstructure as compared to
the viscous and viscoelastic dampers.
7. Viscous damper is found to provide improved control of
isolator displacement without adversely affecting floor
acceleration and storey shear as compared to that provided
by the viscoelastic and friction dampers.
8. In combination with the supplemental dampers, the R-FBI
experiences the lowest isolator displacement followed by
the N-Z system under near-fault ground motions.
9. Base-isolated buildings subjected to near-fault ground
motions benefit more from the use of supplemental
17
dampers as compared to those subjected to the far-fault
ground motions.
REFERENCES
1 Kelly JM (1986). “Aseismic Base Isolation: Review and
Bibliography”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 5(3): 202-216.
2 Jangid RS and Datta TK (1995). “Seismic Behavior of
Base-Isolated Building: A State-of-the-Art Review”.
Structures and Buildings, 110(2): 186-203.
3 Kelly JM and Hodder SB (1982). “Experimental Study of
Lead and Elastomeric Dampers for Base Isolation Systems
in Laminated Neoprene Bearings”. Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering,
15(2): 53-67.
4 Shimoda I, Nakano S, Kitagawa Y and Miyazaki M
(1988). “Experimental Study on Base-Isolated Building
using Lead Rubber Bearing through Vibration Tests”.
Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 2 August - 9 August 1988, Volume
5, 711-716.
5 Mokha A, Constantinou MC, Reinhorn AM and Zayas VA
(1991). “Experimental Study of Friction-Pendulum
Isolation System”. Journal of Structural Engineering,
117(4): 1201-1217.
6 Rao PB and Jangid RS (2001). “Experimental Study of
Base-Isolated Structures”. ISET Journal of Earthquake
Technology, 38(1): 1-15.
7 Fenz DM and Constantinou MC (2006). “Behaviour of the
Double Concave Friction Pendulum Bearing”. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35: 1403-1424.
8 Rabiei M and Khoshnoudian F (2011). “Response of
Multistory Friction Pendulum Base-Isolated Buildings
Including the Vertical Component of Earthquakes”.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 38: 1045-1059.
9 Nanda RP, Agarwal P and Shrikhande M (2012). “Suitable
Friction Sliding Materials for Base Isolation of Masonry
Buildings”. Shock and Vibration, 19: 1327-1339.
10 Ponze FC, Cesare AD, Nigro D, Simonetti M and Leccese
G (2014). “Shaking Table Tests of a Base Isolated
Structure with Double Concave Friction Pendulums”.
Proceedings of the 2014 NZSEE Conference, Auckland,
New Zealand, 21 March - 23 March 2014, Paper No 43.
11 Hall JF, Heaton TH, Halling MW and Wald DJ (1995).
“Near-Source Ground Motion and Its Effects on Flexible
Buildings”. Earthquake Spectra, 11(4): 569-605.
12 Jangid RS and Kelly JM (2001). “Base Isolation for Near-
Fault Motions”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 30: 691-707.
13 Kelly JM (1999). “The Role of Damping in Seismic
Isolation”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 28(1): 3-20.
14 Jangid RS (2005). “Optimum Friction Pendulum System
for Near-Fault Motions”. Engineering Structures, 27: 349-
359.
15 Jangid RS (2007). “Optimum Lead-Rubber Isolation
Bearings for Near-Fault Motions”. Engineering
Structures, 29: 2503-2513.
16 Makris N and Chang SP (1998). “Effect of Viscous,
Viscoplastic and Friction Damping on the Response of
Seismic Isolated Structures”. ISET Journal of Earthquake
Technology, 35(4): 113-141.
17 Zhang Y and Iwan WD (2002). “Protecting Base-Isolated
Structures from Near-Field Ground Motion by Tuned
 18
Interaction Damper”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
128: 287-295.
18 Lu LY and Lin GL (2009). “Improvement of Near-Fault
Seismic Isolation using a Resettable Variable Stiffness
Damper”. Engineering Structures, 31: 2097-2114.
19 Ozbulut OE, Bitaraf M and Hurlebaus S (2011). “Adaptive
Control of Base-Isolated Structures against Near-Field
Earthquakes using Variable Friction Dampers”.
Engineering Structures, 33: 3143-3154.
20 Chang SP, Makris N, Whittaker AS and Thompson AC
(2002). “Experimental and Analytical Studies on the
Performance of Hybrid Isolation Systems”. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31: 421-443.
21 Kim HS, Roschke PN, Lin PY and Loh CH (2006).
“Neuro-Fuzzy Model of Hybrid Semi-Active Base
Isolation System with FPS Bearings and an MR Damper”.
Engineering Structures, 28: 947-958.
22 Lu LY and Lin GL (2008). “Predictive Control of Smart
Isolation System for Precision Equipment Subjected to
Near-Fault Earthquakes”. Engineering Structures, 30:
3045-3064.
23 Providakis CP (2008). “Effect of LRB Isolators and
Supplemental Viscous Dampers on Seismic Isolated
Buildings under Near-Fault Excitations”. Engineering
Structures, 30: 1187-1198.
24 Lu LY, Lin CC and Lin GL (2013). “Experimental
Evaluation of Supplemental Viscous Damping for Sliding
View publication stats
Isolation System under Pulse-Like Base Excitations”.
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 332: 1982-1999.
25 Oh SH, Song SH, Lee SH and Kim HJ (2013).
“Experimental Study of Seismic Performance of Base-
Isolated Frames with U-Shaped Hysteretic Energy-
Dissipating Devices”. Engineering Structures, 56: 2014-
2027.
26 Qin C, Liu W, and He W (2014). “Seismic Response
Analysis of Isolated Nuclear Power Plants with Friction
Damper Isolation”. 2nd AASRI Conference on Power and
Energy Systems, Jeju Island, Korea, 27 December - 28
December 2013, Volume 7, Paper No 5, 26-31.
27 Wen, YK (1976). “Method for Random Vibrations of
Hysteretic Systems”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Division, 102: 249-263.
28 Zayas VA, Low SS and Mahin SA (1990). “A Simple
Pendulum Technique for Achieving Seismic Isolation”.
Earthquake Spectra, 6(2): 317-333.
29 Mostaghel N and Khodaverdian M (1987). “Dynamics of
Resilient-Friction Base Isolator (R-FBI)”. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 15: 379-390.
30 Matsagar V, Jangid RS (2006). “Base-Isolated Building
Connected to Adjacent Building using Viscous Dampers”.
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, 39(1): 59-80.